Knits Internationale, Inc

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

’ In ron Marrer or KNITS INTERNATIONALE, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1721. Complaint, Apr. 8, 1970—Decision, Apr. 8, 1970 Consent order requiring a Miami Beach, Fla., importer and seller of ladies’ ready-to-wear knitwear to cease misbranding its woolen and textile products and falsely advertising and deceptively guaranteeing its textile fiber products.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Knits Internationale, Inc., a corporation, and David Brandy and Joy Brandy, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provision of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Complaint V7 ¥E.T.C.

Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commisson that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracraru 1. Respondent Knits Internationale, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of. Florida, with its office and principal place of business located at 1800 Bay Road, Miami Beach, Florida. Individual respondents David Brandy and Joy Brandy are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation, and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the importation and sale of ladies’ ready-to-wear knitwear. Sales are mostly at the retail level, but some wholesale business is done.

Par. 2. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, . were wool products, namely ladies’ garments, stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as containing “100% Wool,” whereas in truth and in fact, such garments contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented. Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.: ) ' Par. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now. constitute, unfair methods of competition and KNITS INTERNATIONALE, INC., ET AL. 365 363 Complaint unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 6. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Par. 7. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was a textile fiber product, namely a coat, advertised as “Silky Knit,” whereas in truth and in fact said coat was composed of acetate.

Par. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products by means of written advertisements distributed by respondents in interstate commerce and used to aid, promote, or to assist, directly or. indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among the aforesaid disclosures and implications as to fiber content, but not limited thereto was the term “Silky Knit.” - Par. 9. The respondents have furnished false guaranties that their textile fiber products were not misbranded by falsely invoicing and writing on invoices that respondents had filed a continuing guaranty under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act with the Fed- 4ART-207—T3.

is) ot .

Decision and Order 77 ETC.

eral Trade Commission, when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 38(d) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Par. 10. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Seven, Eight and Nine above, were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter exccuted an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission’s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the.matter and having determined that it has reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: i 1. Respondent Knits Internationale, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws KNITS INTERNATIONALE, INC., ET AL. ous 363 Order of the State of Florida, with its office and principal place of business located at 1800 Bay Road, Miami Beach, Florida. Individual respondents David Brandy and Joy Brandy are officers -of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Knits Internationale, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David Brandy and Joy Brandy, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affix to or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner, each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further ordered, That respondents Knits Internationale, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David Brandy and Joy Brandy, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, deliv- Order WT ETC.

ery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from : A. Misbranding such products by falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, . as to the fiber content of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Sections 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

It is further ordered, That respondents Knits Internationale, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David Brandy and Joy Brandy, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing false guaranties that textile fiber products are not misbranded or falsely invoiced under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Act.

It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order.

Lt is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It ts further ordered, That respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. Complaint